Change is sometimes good and sometimes bad, but nothing in this world is ever really static. Sure, it is easy to look back and say if the rules of succession had been different, we would have had no Edward VII, George V, etc., but I doubt very much Princess Victoria would have married an heir to a foreign throne. And besides, what good does it do to look back? Besides, we would have to go back to the the 1700s when Parliament changed the line of succession and complain about that too, no? But the public accepted that change and the world kept spinning.

We must embrace the future and we must embrace change. Nothing is wrong about changing the rules of succession. The individual's place in the line of succession is still an accident of birth. Who can say that this change will be bad? I, for one, welcome it.

Also it is likely to be another 20-50 years before we see the impact.....and if William and Catherine have a son as their first child even longer before we see a first born daughter take precedence over a second born son and succeed to the throne.

Change is sometimes good and sometimes bad, but nothing in this world is ever really static. Sure, it is easy to look back and say if the rules of succession had been different, we would have had no Edward VII, George V, etc., but I doubt very much Princess Victoria would have married an heir to a foreign throne. And besides, what good does it do to look back? Besides, we would have to go back to the the 1700s when Parliament changed the line of succession and complain about that too, no? But the public accepted that change and the world kept spinning.

We must embrace the future and we must embrace change. Nothing is wrong about changing the rules of succession. The individual's place in the line of succession is still an accident of birth. Who can say that this change will be bad? I, for one, welcome it.

I also agree that change is unpredictable. Nevertheless, reflection is useful. IMHO it allows one to curb impulsiveness in the benefit that one carefully judges the possible repercussions of future endeavors. Yes, we must embrace the future and change. But change can be spontaneous or it can be intentional. For the latter I believe that there should be justified reasons.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with absolute primogeniture. However, IMHO no justified reasons have been made to initiate such a drastic change to the adoption of absolute primogeniture by the monarchy. Reasons have been raised...gender discrimination, modernization, ease of transition. IMHO none the reasons given so far can justify the change "at this moment". Given the looming global economic perils, a proposal that the unborn children of William and Catherine should inherit the throne on the basis of age rather than gender IMHO displays a clear example of reckless indulgence in impulsiveness.

The monarchy is not subject to anti-discrimination legislation like some other public-sector job. The concept of monarchy just simply does not make sense in the modern business model. To legislate it as such, will undoubtedly lead to a range of absurdities. Between the reign of Queen Victoria and HM Queen Elizabeth II, over 100 years, no princess has been denied the throne as a result of male primogeniture. Will this happen in the future, some think so. Nevertheless, who knows what benefit or pitfalls will result from this dissolution legislation, weather they be to the monarchy, the peerage, or to the commonwealth as a whole. "At this moment" IMHO this time should be delegated to more important issues. What do you think?

You make valid points and with the troubles facing the world today, this issue certainly ranks near the bottom in the list of priorities. But when would it ever be valid to raise such an issue and effectuate the change? Do you forsee an event in the future which would mandate a change? Hasn't history already shown us that many times the heir to the throne is not the one the public might like, or the better candidate may be found farther down the line?

And will it really take up much time and effort to make this change? Certainly government can tackle the important issues of the day while still implementing the change in the line of succession. I don't see important tasks being put aside while addressing this issue.

The monarchy is an anachronism but even anachronisms can try to keep current and adapt with changing opinions and beliefs. I am a history major and love tradition but sometimes traditions must change to meet the public's expectation that even when it comes to royalty and succession, people should be treated equally. Years ago people said women should not be allowed to vote because they never had before and there was no need to change the law. Certainly the monarch realizes that he or she happens to be on the throne through pure accident of birth--there is no meritocracy involved. Why can't the powers that be simply state that the eldest, regardless of sex, and through pure accident of birth, shall inherit the throne?

Between the reign of Queen Victoria and HM Queen Elizabeth II, over 100 years, no princess has been denied the throne as a result of male primogeniture.

As several others have pointed out in this thread, this is not true. Queen Victoria's eldest child was a girl, Princess Victoria (later Empress of Germany). She most certainly was denied the throne as a result of male primogeniture.

"At this moment" IMHO this time should be delegated to more important issues. What do you think?

This issue was dealt with in what, a day? If they didn't do it before a baby was born it would have caused a lot more fuss if they were to do it after.

You seem to be basing your writings on the fact that genes have produced the boys first rather than the girls, so basically luck. Well we know for a fact that the girls can come first, and if it does in the case of William and Catherine then the right laws will be in place. I don't see what the big fuss is about changing this law?

Perhaps its just me but I had gotten the idea that perhaps the timing of this proposal for equal primogeniture was deliberately planned so that the Queen's support of the changes would be known as she attended the CHOGM in Perth.

To me it was kind of fitting for this issue to be on the table as the Queen attended what may be her last CHOGM and trip to Australia. As Lumutqueen said its a issue that was dealt with quite quickly. Also, as a female regnant herself, having this ages old restriction changed within the time of her Diamond Jubilee celebrations approaching is a far better legacy and a salute to HM than any parade or commemorative coin could ever be.

The Queen is definitely leaving a very fitting legacy for which she'll be remembered, and who better than a female monarch supporting equal primogeniture. And wouldn't it be so well-timed if Will and Kate's first child was a girl? But if not, well, it's in place for future generations and indicates that the monarchy is flexible and adaptable to change.

The most recent case of an elder sister being superseded by a younger brother is Victoria, Princess Royal, Empress of Germany, Queen of Prussia and Edward VII. Princess Victoria passed away the same year her mother Queen Victoria passed away. Had absolute primogeniture been applied to the monarchy at that time the Princess Royal's son Wilhelm, who was already Emperor of Germany and King of Prussia, would have become the King of the UK. Wilhelm II, Emperor of Germany, King of Prussia, King of the United Kingdom and British Dominions and Emperor of India...now that's a mouthful. Fascinating...there would've been no Edward VII, no George V, no Edward VIII, no George VI and no...oh my gosh...no HM Queen Elizabeth II! However, at that time male primogeniture was in place so upon the death of Queen Victoria her son Edward became king, the his son George V, his son Edward VIII, his brother George VI, his daughter...daughter? I thought male primogeniture discriminated against women becoming sovereign, what gives?

That's beside the point: Had primogenitur been in effect Victoria wouldn't have married the next german Kaiser, but like Queen Victoria a younger son ...

as it was an arranged marriage - and not a matter of love - another prince would have been the luck guy...

I am quite glad this has come to be as I feel we should have a Queen after two Kings, though after all this change William and Catherine's first child will no doubt be a boy now! But I do think it is a good think as this whole "men before women" deal dates back so long, we are living in the 21st Century! Change needs to happen.

From what I have read, this change of law does not affect the current line up does it? It WOULD have been nice to see Anne come before her younger brothers, as anything to get Beatrice and Eugenie further from the Crown is always a bonus. I doubt Anne REALLY cares, but it must have been annoying to be shot down several places after the birth of your younger brothers and their children. Even Louise got moved a place after the birth of her younger brother.

__________________

"I am yours, you are mine, of that be sure. You are locked in my heart, the little key is lost and now you must stay there forever."

Written by Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine in the diary of her fiance, Tsarevich Nicholas.

I am quite glad this has come to be as I feel we should have a Queen after two Kings, though after all this change William and Catherine's first child will no doubt be a boy now! But I do think it is a good think as this whole "men before women" deal dates back so long, we are living in the 21st Century! Change needs to happen.

From what I have read, this change of law does not affect the current line up does it? It WOULD have been nice to see Anne come before her younger brothers, as anything to get Beatrice and Eugenie further from the Crown is always a bonus. I doubt Anne REALLY cares, but it must have been annoying to be shot down several places after the birth of your younger brothers and their children. Even Louise got moved a place after the birth of her younger brother.

I think that Anne would probably have been happy to let her younger brothers displace her. From what I've gathered, no one in the RF want to be king/queen. There have been numerous stories about past royals who weren't happy they were going to become King/Queen. Being the King/Queen isn't that glamorous as it might have been, especially in a constitutional monarchy--you're severely restricted in what you can do, have great responsibilities, etc. I once read somewhere that the PoW once said he was in no hurry to become King, as it would mean he would lose much of his freedom that he currently has, and of course would mean the lose of his mother too.

The fact that the Queen has unwaveringly served her countries as the Queen for so long and so well is a testimony to her strength and character.

From what I have read, this change of law does not affect the current line up does it? It WOULD have been nice to see Anne come before her younger brothers, as anything to get Beatrice and Eugenie further from the Crown is always a bonus.

Seems a bit harsh. Yes, Andrew is more than a bit of a child and Sarah's a colossal mess but we've yet to see what those girls have to offer. Remember that the Wales boys had media protection and that their mother is considered all but a saint. William has a permanent pass unless he does something severely stupid. Beatrice and Eugenie aren't nearly so lucky.

I am just curious to find out sill the daughter be the Duchess of Cornwall and then Princess of Wales like the men have. I take it to be so just have not heard this in this terms.

Actually I think all it would pertain too is that should William and Kate have a daughter first, she would be heir apparent to the throne. Will be interesting to see what happens with the Duchy of Cornwall. As I understand it, there are only two royal duchies in the UK, Lancaster and Cornwall. The duchy of Lancaster pertains to the monarch while the Duchy of Cornwall is inherited by the eldest son of the monarch.

This could be problematic should they retain the standards set now for Cornwall. Should William and Kate's 2nd child be male and he inherits the Duchy when William becomes king, with an older sister as monarch eventually, wouldn't that be a sticky situation if the monarch herself then would have a male child?

With this reasoning, I'd think they'd almost HAVE to change the ruling to be the eldest child of the monarch as far as the Duchy of Cornwall. It wouldn't necessarily have to affect the peerages as it would only pertain to ROYAL duchies and with the monarch holding Lancaster, that's a no-brainer to figure out.

OK, I've got afew questions!
I'm way behind on the rules and regulations governing inheritance, but with regard to the peerage, is it LAW or CUSTOM to pass your title down to the next oldest male in the family?
What is the likelihood of female eldest children of dukes and earls throughout the country now suing for the right to take the title over their younger brothers?
The Queen is currently the Duke of Lancaster (and still referred to as the Duke of Normandy in the Channel Islands), so is it too far fetched to imagine a female heir apparent being the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cornwall?
What happened to the Duchy of Cornwall when the Queen was Princess Elizabeth? Who looked after the estate in those days and gained the income from it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wbenson

No, it won't. This only affects succession to the throne. Succession to peerages is a different issue.

That was done as a special remainder to his two daughters. No other women are able to succeed to that earldom. (It will descend to the heirs male of the current Countess, then if they are exhausted to her sister Pamela and her heirs male.)

Do we know how Lord Mountbatten enabled his eldest daughter to inherit his title? Was it simply in his will? EDIT: Ok, I've researched this now and found that it was arranged by Letters Patent when he was given the title.

Under that scenario, then, would it be allowable for peers to have letters patent issued to permit their first-born daughters to inherit the title? If a title had to pass out of the family because there is no son, if such is the case currently, can a daughter now inherit it?

Too early in the morning to contemplate these intricacies; I need my coffee.

Succession is based entirely on the original Letters Patent. New Letters Patent would mean a new creation of the title, and new hereditary titles have not been created (aside from the Royal Family) since Mrs Thatchers time so I doubt if this would be a feasable way of dealing with female succession.
Since hereditary peers no longer sit in the House of Lords there really is no motivation for a government to act on changing peerage succession laws and some may even feel it desirable to let hereditary peerages become extinct in cases where there is no male heir.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baroness of Books

If a title had to pass out of the family because there is no son, if such is the case currently, can a daughter now inherit it?

Currently if there is no male heir the title cannot be inherited by a daughter unless the original Letters Patent provide for succession by heirs general as opposed to heirs male. If there is no such provision the title eithers passes to another male heir or becomes extinct or at least dormant.

Yes, that's what I meant, that if LPs were now created for daughters to inherit, it would be possible to keep the title in the family and not become extinct. I was wondering how Lord Mountbatten's daughter had been able to inherit her father's title. Thanks for the explanation!

Yes, that's what I meant, that if LPs were now created for daughters to inherit, it would be possible to keep the title in the family and not become extinct. I was wondering how Lord Mountbatten's daughter had been able to inherit her father's title. Thanks for the explanation!

In Mountbattens case a special remainder was included in his Letters Patent allowing for his daughters, and the heirs male of his daughters, to succeed to the peerage. If the males line descendents of Patricia and Pamela were to die out then the Mountbatten peerage would become extinct.